UK to join up with allies for stronger response to Putin’s ‘grey zone’ warfare
Sub-threshold or hybrid warfare, such as cyber attacks and interference with undersea cables, is designed to test the resolve of adversaries and undermine their defences
Britain is to work more closely with its allies on responding to and preventing Russia from carrying out so-called “grey zone” attacks on the West, it has emerged.
The Kremlin has stepped up its hybrid warfare against Nato countries over the past two years – including cyber attacks, interference with undersea cables in the Baltic and North Sea and disinformation campaigns.
This “sub-threshold” activity – below the trigger point for armed conflict – is deliberately designed to test the resolve of adversaries and undermine their defences.
The Strategic Defence Review, published earlier this week, recommends the Government works together with close allies in “developing and exercising mechanisms for political decision-making in response to crises, especially where they fall short of war”.
Defence insiders said “collective preparation in advance” would allow for a more rapid response and also help deter such attacks in the first place. Collective preparation is a deterrent factor in its own right, insiders said.
Defence Secretary John Healey told the Nato defence ministers’ meeting in Brussels earlier this week that the alliance had already confirmed that cyber or hybrid attacks could form the basis of an Article 5 response – where an attack on one member state is deemed to be an attack on all.
Russia blurring lines of threat
The grey zone attacks, highlighted by the SDR, are all potentially harmful but differ in scale of impact, immediacy and overtness or immediate certainty of attribution, an insider said.
Working more closely on such prevention and response would allow allies to be collectively stronger, they added.
The SDR said that the threshold between a military crisis and a military conflict is not always obvious and readily determined, which could often cause uncertainty over how allies should respond.
The review said: “States such as Russia are intentionally blurring the lines between nuclear, conventional and sub-threshold threats, complicating the ability of the UK and its allies to manage potential escalation and miscalculation.
“Technology creates new paths for escalation by creating new ways to disrupt and coerce, for example, in cyber space and space. States and non-state actors are evermore aggressive in using sub-threshold activities to seek advantage.”
Russian hostilities also include amassing troops and equipment on its border with Finland, a new Nato ally.
It comes as a Labour MP expressed disappointment that the SDR did not contain more measures to defend Britain, for example from missile attacks.
The review authors did not include an Israeli Iron Dome-style system in their recommendations because it would be too expensive for the 3 per cent GDP defence spending limit the Government is planning for after the next election.
The MP said that basing the defence of the nation largely on nuclear deterrence “is putting too much on one aspect”.
They added: “We need to think about defence as well as deterrence, we need to think about missile defence for London and other cities and maybe RAF and military bases.”
The MP questioned whether the UK’s DragonFire laser would be sufficient in an era when Ukraine is able to destroy 40 flagship Russian bombers using cheap drones: “Can it shoot down a swarm of 40 drones?”
Nuclear warhead stockpiling
The SDR raised concerns over Russia and China’s willingness to engage in talks about reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is due for review next year.
It said: “The UK must continue to champion its nuclear responsibilities while seeking to renew the arms control, disarmament and non‑proliferation regime, centred on the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty.
“However, the UK’s priorities and objectives in seeking this renewal must be realistic about the absence of willing partners in Moscow and Beijing.”
China and Russia – which are signatories to the NPT – have been stockpiling nuclear warheads, with Beijing predicted to double its arsenal to 1,000 by 2030.
While the NPT does not forbid member countries from stockpiling, it bans them from passing them to non-nuclear states, and nuclear states must pledge to work towards disarmament.
Defence insiders said the UK was “fully committed to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament”, as well as to the “long-term goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons in a transparent, verifiable and irreversible manner, with undiminished security for all”.
But Britain was also alive to the “strategic reality” of the world becoming more dangerous and more uncertain, and it would be negligent for the Government not to take steps to ensure that the UK’s nuclear deterrent remains fit for purpose for as long as it is needed, the insiders said.
The UK will continue to seek constructive engagement with Russia and China, through their common membership of the P5 group of permanent members of the UN Security Council.
